Important safety and economic factors for any surgical instrument include sterility, cost of acquisition, maintenance, and reliability during use in the surgical suite. Each of these factors can have a significant impact on the cost of medical care for both the patient and the provider.
In recent years, there has been significant focus on the ever increasing cost of medical care. These cost increases have led to skyrocketing insurance premiums, reduced coverage, reduced reimbursements, increased fees for services, severe reductions in services for some patient groups by some providers, and unfortunately an apparent increase in infections and medical mishaps.
In an effort to reduce costs and improve profitability, both service providers and medical device suppliers are continuously looking for ways to streamline procedures, cut time, cost, and risk from their products and services without reducing the quality of the products or services they provide to their customers. One area to benefit from these savings and improvements has been in the orthopedic surgical field the through the use of high precision, battery powered surgical instrumentation. In the late 1960's and early 1970's battery operated drills were bulky, ill-balanced and required multiple batteries to perform some surgeries due to the limited energy storage capacity and poor efficiency of the electric motors.
Since then, manufacturers have attempted to make batteries more efficient with higher energy storage capacity, reduced size, and improved rechargeable lifespans. Likewise, motor housings such as saw and drill bodies have become more ergonomic, balanced, lightweight and energy efficient. As with many standard hand tools having multiple moving components, instrument manufacturers have reduced weight by utilizing lighter materials such as plastic housings, and gears, and put lightening holes in what were previously solid housings. In some cases, standard mountings for attachments have been replaced with modular fittings, allowing for greater interchangeability and component selections. Additionally, manufacturers have attempted to improve electrical components by upgrading them with more modern components wherever possible.
All of these improvements in equipment design have improved efficiencies, costs and quality in some areas while at the same time increasing costs for acquisition, maintenance and increasing risks and patient safety in other ways that were not previously seen or predicted. Often times cost, quality and safety can be inversely proportional to one another. One example of the increased cost and reduced patient safety is seen in the cleaning and maintenance of instruments.
Recent published reports suggest that many of the surgical instruments used in operations were not being cleaned and/or sterilized appropriately in the very hospital facilities that were established and tasked for that purpose. In numerous reports, following cleaning and sterilization, it was noted that upon closer secondary inspection, the inside of small diameter cannulas and intricate mini-components of arthroscopic shavers that are used for many of today's minimally invasive procedures, contained human tissue and bone fragments from previous surgeries. In other cases, modular components of drills and saws such as chucks, drill bits and blades were found to have similar debris or pieces of cleaning brushes and/or bristles embedded in or on them. These investigations have demonstrated that in most cases the instruments were not cleaned according to manufacturer's specifications which has likely lead to many documented cases of serious, multiple, serial infections for subsequent patients. A pilot program conducted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Schaefer et al., 2010; JAMA 2010; 303(22):2273-2279) inspected 1500 outpatient surgery centers and found that 28% had been cited for infectious control deficiencies associated with equipment cleaning and sterilization. The costs to the patients and the hospitals in both expense and liability to deal with these infections can be and has been staggering.
In other cases, critical battery-operated, motorized tools such as drills or bone saws have ceased to function due to dead batteries that no longer maintain their capacity to hold a charge, or due to internal part failure, often attributable to overuse or lack of proper maintenance. The resultant downtime in the operating suite is extremely costly, as the procedure step must be put on hold while replacement or substitute tools are obtained. Wait times may often exceed 20-30 minutes, resulting in additional anesthesia exposure for the patient, additional operating room time (charged to the patient) and potential delays to other procedures where the replacement or substitute equipment had been scheduled for use in a later procedure. Recent estimates (2005) establish the average cost of operating room time to range between $62/min. (range $21.80-$133.12) depending on the procedure. These figures did not include extra resources provided by the hospital for special, non-routine situations which often occur during standard procedures, and did not include the surgeon and anesthesia provider fees, (anesthesia fees are estimated to be $4/min; range $2.20-$6.10). In each case, the hospital or surgical center must then take the equipment out of service, and send it back to the instrument manufacturer or other service provider for service or replacement.
Hospitals and instrument manufactures are continuously attempting to find improved ways to reduce risk associated with infection in general, and more recently, specifically from improperly cleaned instruments. One approach has been to use more disposable, single-use instruments such as drills, saw blades and plastic cannulas. Additionally, many laparoscopic devices such as, surgical staplers and trocars, are designed as single use items that are intended to be immediately disposed of after use. Unfortunately, at today's acquisition costs, the total cost of ownership and benefits are not always clear for high-use battery-operated, motorized instruments such as saws, drills and reamers used in orthopedic procedures and the idea of disposable powered instruments has not been readily embraced.
A recent trend in the medical community is reprocessing of single use medical instruments, by parties other than the original equipment manufacturer, instead of discarding them after use. During reprocessing, the medical instruments are disassembled, cleaned and sterilized. They are then reassembled for future use. However, since the medical instruments reprocessed for further use are specifically designed only for use during a single procedure, the performance of the medical instruments tend to decline after reprocessing, since the components making up the medical instrument are not adapted for multiple uses and will degrade in performance when used beyond their intended life span. For example, reprocessing of the cutting devices on trocars is intended to extend these devices beyond their intended mission life, but often results in duller cutting edges on the blades because neither the materials used nor the reprocessing method can restore the device to the original manufacturing specifications. A greater force, therefore, is needed to make an initial incision, causing more trauma to the patient. In addition, the use of greater force increases the potential for error during the surgical procedure.
Most hospitals and surgery centers buy high-use, reusable motorized, pneumatic, wired or battery operated, orthopedic surgical equipment and are expected to clean, sterilize, and maintain them internally within the hospital. Unfortunately, the technicians hired to perform this work are typically not qualified or trained to perform this work adequately for the many varieties of powered instruments used. Further, manufacturers rarely provide the hospital/client with the training or diagnostic equipment necessary to evaluate or test the equipment themselves. Often times the hospital employees responsible for cleaning and maintenance are not technicians at all, being paid slightly more than minimum wage, working at a fast pace to merely wash, count, reload instruments into their appropriate system trays and flash sterilize them as quickly as possible, in an effort to keep the equipment in rotation in the hospital operating rooms, where higher throughput dictates profitability for the hospital or surgery center.
As a result of high throughput requirements, general maintenance is rarely done and preventative monitoring and maintenance is almost never done on this type of equipment. Hospital budgets for internal maintenance of equipment are generally geared toward higher-end, multi-million dollar capital equipment such as x-ray and radiological equipment. It is generally assumed that it is faster, simpler, and more economical for the hospital to wait for hand-held instruments, such as drills, saws and reamers to fail, then, send them back to the manufacturer for repair or replacement.
Thus it has become apparent that there is a need for an improved system of cost-effective, battery-operated, motorized tools in conjunction with better cleaning and maintenance protocols which can provide the hospital, surgeon, and most importantly, the patient, with a higher degree of safety, efficiency, and cleanliness, while reducing risk and keeping the costs of cleaning, maintenance, and repair as low as possible.